On 12/1/05, Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 12:11:24PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:> > On 12/1/05, Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:> > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 01:51:15AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:> > > > So, bad example.> > >> > > Not in the IDE case. Bart restricted IDE to a smaller number of ARM> > > platforms, plus any that had PCMCIA. There is no such restriction> > > in the asm-arm/*.h header files.> >> > When I did this change there was such restriction in asm-arm/mach-*/ide.h> > files (some platforms just lacked ide.h making IDE build break for them).> >> > IDE is a bad example anyway because of legacy ordering issues etc etc.>> Okay. Given the general concensus in this thread, can this be removed> now?

No, I didn't say that I agree with DaveM. :)

For IDE keeping restriction makes it much easier to maintain(i.e. to answer questions like "why is this ugly hack needed?").